-
8/14/2019 The Presocratic Philosophers by Jonathan Barnes
1/4
Review: The Presocratic Philosophers
Author(s): M.R. WrightReviewed work(s):
The Presocratic Philosophers by Jonathan BarnesSource: The
Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 30, No. 1 (1980), pp.
43-45Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The
Classical AssociationStable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3063546
Accessed: 04/10/2008 04:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of
JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's
Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an
entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and
you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal,
non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this
work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the
same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build
trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials
they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more
information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The Classical Associationand Cambridge University Pressare
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Classical Review.
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3063546?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3063546?origin=JSTOR-pdf
-
8/14/2019 The Presocratic Philosophers by Jonathan Barnes
2/4
THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 43THE PRESOCRATICPHILOSOPHERS
JONATHANBARNES: The Presocratic Philosophers. Vol. 1, Thales
toZeno; Vol. 2, Empedocles to Democritus. ('The Argumentsof
thePhilosophers'Series.) Pp. xiv + 378; x + 353. London:
Routledge& KeganPaul, 1979. ?10 each vol.; two-vol. set
?18.Jonathan Barnes's analysis of the Presocratic philosophers
coincides with theappearance of the paperback version of the first
two volumes of W.K.C. Guthrie'sHistory of Greek Philosophy. Such is
the nature of the subject however thatthere is little overlap
between the philosophical and the historical accounts; attimes the
two barely converge.Barnes divides his work into three main
sections, the tides of which indicatehis general approach and bias:
(1) Eden (the Milesians, Heraclitus, Xenophanesand Pythagoras-in
that misleading order), (2) The Serpent (Parmenides,Melissus, and
Zeno), and, comprising the second volume, (3) Paradise Regained(the
neo-Ionians, Philotaus, and some Sophists). The first volume deals
in themain with individual philosophies, the second is more
thematic, and eithermay be read independently of the other. Each
volume has particular bibliographiescorresponding to the chapters,
and its own notes and indexes; the appendiceson sources and
chronology, with the concordance and general bibliography,are given
in each. Unfortunately the Indexes of Persons are mostly of
ancientnames only (exclusively so in the second volume), and the
consequent absenceof cross-reference necessitates a microscopic
reading of the notes to reveal theadmittedly highly selective
involvement with the secondary literature. AllGreek is
transliterated, and most of the translations are original.The
Preface proudly installs the Presocratics as philosophers in their
ownright. 'My main thesis' writes Barnes (l.ix)'is that the
Presocratics were thefirst masters of rational thought; and my main
aim is the exposition andassessment of their various
ratiocinations', and again (1.5): '[Presocraticopinions] are
characteristically supported by arguments, buttressed byreasons,
established upon evidence'. But high hopes are dashed in
individualassessments, e.g.: 'We may hazard it that nothing was
clear either in thewritings or in the minds of those men' (1.44, on
Thales and Anaximander),'Parmenides' metaphysics is based upon a
falsehood and defended by aspecious argument' (1.172), Zeno was not
a philosopher but the first of the'Sophists'-'negative,
destructive, polemical' (1.294); the second volume isthus
dismissed: 'the neo-Ionian revival is fundamentally a flop'
(2.140).These are disheartening conclusions for the work on which
they are based,and typify the author's habit of belittling his
arguments with snap judgementsand flat sententiae. To those he
favours credit is given, and often in abundance.Anaximenes provides
a final theory that has many of the hallmarks of science(1.47),
Heraclitus' Theory of Flux, Unity of Opposites, and Monism
togetherform a metaphysical system (1.60), and Xenophanes is
upgraded into ana priori monotheist: 'pure logic moulded his
conception of god; science gavehis conception substance and matter'
(1.99). Philolaus' fragments (acceptedas authentic) reveal the
discoverer of Aristotelian 'form' (2.94), Diagoras isbrought from
obscurity to invent an argument crucial to the Problem of
Evil(2.151-4), and the surprising conclusion of the full treatment
of Protagoras'Homomensurasatz is that 'he trod the lonely path of
idealism' (2.249).
-
8/14/2019 The Presocratic Philosophers by Jonathan Barnes
3/4
For the main arguments of the early chapters there can be
nothing butpraise; the sections are lucid and informative, an
expert introduction to thehistory of some key issues in philosophy.
Barnes is marvellously direct,whether analysing first moves on the
principles of human knowledge or onproblems of responsibility and
chance; in the psychology of both Pythagorasand Empedocles he
reveals rational theory rather than religious dogma
ormystery-mongering. Characteristically, in a dozen pages in the
second volume(112-24), he 'reconciles the irreconcilable',
expounding Empedocles' sixdifferent explanatory principles,
clarifying the confusion in the Mind ofAnaxagoras, and undoing
Democritus' 'horrible muddle' about necessity,chance, and
causation. But he is brusque with Parmenides, treating the Way
ofTruth as a preliminary to the work of Melissus, to whom he gives
all the bestarguments. Monism is denied to Parmenides, and he is
left with a brightlycoloured spherical O, surrounded and
close-packed by other entities (cf.1.2034, 229, 333 n. 7). The two
chapters on Zeno, for all their logicalbrilliance, are similarly
basically derogatory.The most striking feature of the work is the
pervasive formalism. A method,described as a necessary translation
into a modern idiom, starts with the'harmless pedantry' of turning
Hippias' sentence on Thales into a syllogism,and swiftly becomes
the practice of presenting the content of Presocraticfragments and
doxography in a complex and ruthless logical form. Sometimesthe
practice is enlightening and generous, and a salutary reminder of
theseductions of the Greek language, but its unremitting
application does notalways clarify a Presocratic attack on a
problem. On Zeno, for example, ittakes fourteen lines of formidable
logic (1.244) to express the mundane truththat any object is made
up of the parts of its parts. Empedocles' universe iscited as a
perfect example of Eternal Recurrence (2.201); the logical
formgiven makes it an extreme case, so that K*1 is a mirror
reflection of K1 in themovement from sphere to sphere, but a
simpler version of K2 following K1 isprobably closer to what can be
fathomed from the original. A differentexample, but typical of the
method, is the argument for the eternity of atomicmotion (2.128):
'The explanandum is: (1) For every object, x, and time, t, xis
moving at t. For every case of (1), there is available, in theory,
a truth of theform: (2) a moves at tn because Q. Hence (1) itself
is explained'. A deal ofexpertise is needed to unravel the 'hence'
here. In general, more philosophicalhelp for the Hellenist, and
linguistic in-filling for the philosopher, wouldwiden the
readership.There are many signs of haste. Anaximenes' assertion
that the sun is flatlike a leaf is assumed to be a joke (1.54), but
it counters Anaximander's'sun-ring', and is an example of the kind
of criticism earlier found wantingin the Milesians. At 2.141 we are
told that Empedocles and Ion do not denythe existence of chalk and
cheese but three pages later Empedocles denies theexistence of men
and clouds. The 'largercontext' required at 2.183 could besupplied
from 186. Pages 11, 23, 80, 85, 99, 106, and 151 of volume 2
havemisprints, and Pythagoras has wandered into the chapter on
Protagoras atp. 147. Examples of dubious translation are of
Parmenides' B.8.47-8 whichbegins 'nor is there anything that is,'
(1.179), and of panta in Empedocles'B.110.10 as 'all [my words] '.
More serious is the mistake at 1.177 where twosentences are set out
as direct quotation from Professor Owen (with a wrong
44 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
-
8/14/2019 The Presocratic Philosophers by Jonathan Barnes
4/4
page-reference), the first of which is garbled and the second
invented. Barnescomments: 'I find myself unable to understand the
suggestion'. No wonderThe overall impression is of an undisciplined
embarrassment of riches, ofprovocation and some prejudice,
essential reading for the specialist, butdaunting for those on the
fringe and beyond.University College of Wales,Aberystwyth M.R.
WRIGHT
HERACLITUS FROM THE DEEP ENDD. HOLWERDA:Sprunge in die Tiefen
Heraklits. Pp. x + 138.Groningen: Bouma's Boekhuis, 1978.'A
primaeval jungle of misunderstandings and "mechanical" errors
oftransmission grew luxuriantly' over and about the text of
Heraclitus 'shortlyafter his death (or perhaps even during his
lifetime)'. Socrates confided toEuripides that he could not
understand the whole of Heraclitus' ovy7paC4ua(D. L. 2.22);
Theophrastus thought that he wrote ra glev i,ureX?i,rdT
'adXXore\XXco eXovra (D. L. 9.6): today we are immeasurably worse
off-not least because the texts we pore over are wholly
unreliable.Such reflections, at once sombre and challenging, set
Dr. Holwerda off onhis adventures: philological machete in hand, he
hacks his way, step by step,through the undergrowth, determined to
rediscover the Lost Word ofHeraclitus. His monograph exhibits some
twenty-five fragments, and recordsthe explorations which led to
them: in each case, detailed textual studyuncovers or restores
Heraclitus' ipsissima verba, and provides a literal readingof them.
Philosophical interpretation, and the reconstruction of
Heraclitus'system of thought, must wait until there is a legible
text to interpret.The general flavour of Dr. Holwerda's researches
is most easily conveyedby an example. Chapter V of his book deals
with the first page of Heraclitus'auyypajiua. By amazing good
fortune, fifteen of the surviving fragments canbe glued together to
reconstitute that exordium. Of the fragments, mostscholars take B 1
DK (preceded perhaps by the words "HpdKXeIroC.. rdJeXeyet') to mark
the beginning of Heraclitus' work; after all, Aristotle saysthat
the words occur tv r7pr X awvri[Richards; avrov codd.]
TOVavypcidalroq (Rhet. 1407b6; cf. Sextus, M.VII.132). But Dr.
Holwerdaargues that B 108 came before B 1. For the content of B 108
is comparableto the opening lines of, e.g., Hipp. V.M., Vict., Nat.
born., X. Apol; andB 108 heads a series of quotations in Stobaeus
which are otherwise inalphabetical order-the extraordinary
precedence of B 108 is best explainedon the hypothesis that it
originally began the ov'yypapua. (In fact, Stobaeus'list is only
alphabetical-well, almost alphabetical-if you emend B 109 andexcise
B 112; but no doubt Stobaeus' source was an alphabetical anthology
ofHeraclitean aphorisms.)B 108 is to be read thus:
bOKOJcw67ovYucKOvaaoei6te aL4Kveirac qroUro[e1i rovroLtOKvedrata,.
36] jWarejltvWCaKew' [ot codd. edd.] oo4ovarn
rdv'TovKeXcoptLajLpov.nd the last clause translates: '.. . so as to
knowwhat a wise thing that surpasses all is'. B 1 now naturally
follows: its initial'6e' causes no problem; its 'Tro
X56yovTV6E'contrasts neatly with the
page-reference), the first of which is garbled and the second
invented. Barnescomments: 'I find myself unable to understand the
suggestion'. No wonderThe overall impression is of an undisciplined
embarrassment of riches, ofprovocation and some prejudice,
essential reading for the specialist, butdaunting for those on the
fringe and beyond.University College of Wales,Aberystwyth M.R.
WRIGHT
HERACLITUS FROM THE DEEP ENDD. HOLWERDA:Sprunge in die Tiefen
Heraklits. Pp. x + 138.Groningen: Bouma's Boekhuis, 1978.'A
primaeval jungle of misunderstandings and "mechanical" errors
oftransmission grew luxuriantly' over and about the text of
Heraclitus 'shortlyafter his death (or perhaps even during his
lifetime)'. Socrates confided toEuripides that he could not
understand the whole of Heraclitus' ovy7paC4ua(D. L. 2.22);
Theophrastus thought that he wrote ra glev i,ureX?i,rdT
'adXXore\XXco eXovra (D. L. 9.6): today we are immeasurably worse
off-not least because the texts we pore over are wholly
unreliable.Such reflections, at once sombre and challenging, set
Dr. Holwerda off onhis adventures: philological machete in hand, he
hacks his way, step by step,through the undergrowth, determined to
rediscover the Lost Word ofHeraclitus. His monograph exhibits some
twenty-five fragments, and recordsthe explorations which led to
them: in each case, detailed textual studyuncovers or restores
Heraclitus' ipsissima verba, and provides a literal readingof them.
Philosophical interpretation, and the reconstruction of
Heraclitus'system of thought, must wait until there is a legible
text to interpret.The general flavour of Dr. Holwerda's researches
is most easily conveyedby an example. Chapter V of his book deals
with the first page of Heraclitus'auyypajiua. By amazing good
fortune, fifteen of the surviving fragments canbe glued together to
reconstitute that exordium. Of the fragments, mostscholars take B 1
DK (preceded perhaps by the words "HpdKXeIroC.. rdJeXeyet') to mark
the beginning of Heraclitus' work; after all, Aristotle saysthat
the words occur tv r7pr X awvri[Richards; avrov codd.]
TOVavypcidalroq (Rhet. 1407b6; cf. Sextus, M.VII.132). But Dr.
Holwerdaargues that B 108 came before B 1. For the content of B 108
is comparableto the opening lines of, e.g., Hipp. V.M., Vict., Nat.
born., X. Apol; andB 108 heads a series of quotations in Stobaeus
which are otherwise inalphabetical order-the extraordinary
precedence of B 108 is best explainedon the hypothesis that it
originally began the ov'yypapua. (In fact, Stobaeus'list is only
alphabetical-well, almost alphabetical-if you emend B 109 andexcise
B 112; but no doubt Stobaeus' source was an alphabetical anthology
ofHeraclitean aphorisms.)B 108 is to be read thus:
bOKOJcw67ovYucKOvaaoei6te aL4Kveirac qroUro[e1i rovroLtOKvedrata,.
36] jWarejltvWCaKew' [ot codd. edd.] oo4ovarn
rdv'TovKeXcoptLajLpov.nd the last clause translates: '.. . so as to
knowwhat a wise thing that surpasses all is'. B 1 now naturally
follows: its initial'6e' causes no problem; its 'Tro
X56yovTV6E'contrasts neatly with the
THECLASSICAL EVIEWHECLASSICAL EVIEW 455
